March 14, 2013

We are constantly told that the GOP is doomed because it’s the party of straight white men. That may well be true, but few have asked: How can the diverse Democrats hold together? How can special interests as different as blacks and gays be kept in sync?

The answer appears to be: The Obama coalition can stay together only by stoking resentment—and, indeed, hatred—of straight white men. This naked animus is rationalized by projecting the hate felt by the victorious Democrats onto the losers:

We hate straight white Republican men because…they are so full of…uh…hate. Yeah, that’s the ticket: We hate them because they are hateful. No, wait, I mean, we hate them because they are hate-filled. They’re practically Ku Klux Klanners.

To service this Hunger for Hate, the prestige press assiduously generates the Democratic Party’s KKKrazy Glue by whipping up fear and loathing over hate crimes, even when they didn’t, technically, happen.

There was a brief period when Brian Epstein had the young Beatles perform in black leather. Fortunately, Epstein's desire to cash in on the teenybopper market overrode his personal fantasies about John.

"There was a brief period when Brian Epstein had the young Beatles perform in black leather. Fortunately, Epstein's desire to cash in on the teenybopper market overrode his personal fantasies about John."

I don't think this is true, and I speak as once Beatlesmaniac. I think this is what happened. Epstein ran a record shop--his family owned all kinds of businesses--and someone came and asked for a Tony Sheridan record with Beatles playing backup. Or maybe it Beatles singing 'My Bonnie'. Anyway, Epstein found out that Beatles were a Liverpool act and got curious. He went to the Cavern, and I think he found them performing in black leather jackets and pants or jeans or something. Anyway, Beatles then looked a bit rough and played hard. Epstein fell for Lennon head over heels. I guess the rough look turned him on. What Epstein did, however, was clean up their act almost immediately. Gone were the greasy hair, leather jackets, and rough guy act. The hair remained long but were combed neat. They were put in suits and Epstein made them bow to the audience.

Yeah, if you look at all their pre Epstein pics from Hamburg, The Beatles were leathered, greased and cowboy booted up the wazoo. That look probably got Epstein on the hook, but being the savvy money grubber he was, he knew he's have to emasculate them to bring the teenybopper money in.

With Epstein came the suits, and the moptops (free of hair grease) came from mimicking the crowd of Paris existentialists John and Paul ran across on a trip to France.

The difference in Komment Kwality here vs. TakiMag is stark. Takimag has the same 15-20 people having the same inane arguments, commenting on each other's grammar (though some of that is here as well), and generally adding no value.

I think the difference (besides isteve having a generally smarter audience) is that here on isteve commenters can't merely click "reply" to lambast each other.

Yeoman's work in the comments thread to that absurd WaPo article (I was there wrestling with the prigs too, as "eladsinned").

One place subversion of the dominant narrative has to take place is in the comments threads to these phony stories--where the lies are told and the dim-witted amen chorus invariably shows up (it's always lame one-liners with these people; my favorite went something like: "lol! I can't believe people are actually defending the bigoted cesspool that is Mississippi!"--these people can't see the irony for all the irony).

We need to hammer them calmly and rationally, with exquisite discipline. No name-calling, no rancor and no quarter given for their stupidity; no acceptance of their ridiculous terms (never fall into "I'm not a racist--you're a racist!", but expose "racism" as the con-job that it is).

"Yeah, if you look at all their pre Epstein pics from Hamburg, The Beatles were leathered, greased and cowboy booted up the wazoo. That look probably got Epstein on the hook, but being the savvy money grubber he was, he knew he's have to emasculate them to bring the teenybopper money in."

I don't think it was 'money-grubbing'. I would argue that in some ways, Epstein understood the Beatles better than they understood themselves. All the more ironic since Epstein disdained rock n roll and was a classical music connoisseur. In terms of style, Epstein was looking forward whereas the Beatles were looking backward. Their black leather look and greasy hair was harking back to 1950s American rock n roll look. They were doing a kind of nostalgia act. Epstein understood that for the Beatles to succeed, they had to go beyond that. They had to break out of the mold, and in that sense, Epstein unwittingly played a role(at least in style) in helping making the shift from Rock n Roll to what just came to be known as 'rock music' or 'rock culture'. Rock n roll was very prole in style. Rock music could be fancy and even aristocratic-like.

Where Epstein was right about the Beatles was that they made a much better pop band than a rock n roll band. McCartney could sing like Little Richard but he was really a doe-eyed balladeer. Harrison was Kid George. Pete Best did have some tough guy glamour but wasn't much of a drummer. Ringo the cuter fit the band chemistry better. Lennon had a certain edgy quality but he was more a wit and joker than a tough guy bad boy.

The bad boy image much better suited the Stones, the Animals, and the Who. (Ironically, Stones were both rougher/badder and more aristocratic-like than the Beatles. More 'black' but also more haute-bohemian. Partly, this was because Beatles were from working class or lower class backgrounds whereas some of the Stones were from upper middle class backgrounds. Jagger's understanding of American music was also more intellectual.)

So, Epstein was something of a visionary than just a 'money grubber'. Colonel Tom Parker, now that guy was a lowlife money-grubber who trapped Elvis in all those lousy Hollywood movies that the King of Rock n Roll didn't wanna do.

The said thing about Epstein was he didn't know much about the music business. He did a great thing in making the Beatles known to the world, but he signed lousy contracts. It seems like he never tried to consciously cheat the Beatles--like Dylan's manager did to him--but rather got cheated by the record companies.The worst managers of the Beatles were themselves when they ran Apple Corp... to the ground.

Many HBDers eem to have a hard time excepting that anybody could be antiwhite. There is a strain of self-hatred among liberal whites combined with other groups that sincerely don't like whites. Yes, they like what we have (money, social prestige) but not so much US.

Steve, you know I respect the hell outta ye' but this is one of your weaker pieces: an entire piece built around the MacMillan murder, you draw a lot of conclusions based on very little.

I'm not trying to pick a fight here, but is this irony? Because "draw[ing] a lot of conclusions based on very little" is precisely the problem with the Wa Po article. And Steve's piece (oh, but an "entire" one, of--what--fifteen hundred words?) is not "built around the McMillian murder" but around a mainstream news article (front page, I think) which does just that without any justification--indeed, the Post connects the murder to civil rights not with "very little" but with nothing whatsoever. How in the f--- is this not interesting and relevant?

It's not necessary that it be a conspiracy either, this manufacturing of anti-racist hysteria, for it to be pernicious. It's become a reflex action. Note the oblivious irony of the Post, titling a story "Mississippi Murder Stirs Civil Rights Fears"--when in truth it's the story itself that is seeking to "stir civil rights fears". Liberal media types have become zombies on this issue, animate, ravenous and without thought. It's like hypnosis: certain words ("racism", "civil rights" Mississippi", etc) automatically induce a trance state.

What can be done to reverse this tide of belligerent ignorance? Not much. The typical patriot acts within his free-speech and 2nd Amendment rights, and in fact most patriot activity consists of venting steam by meeting with like-minded Neanderthals and firing off blog posts threatening civil war. Yet such blather tends to get under the skin of the Timothy McVeighs of the world. These groups should be closely monitored, with resources adequate to the task, even if it means shifting some homeland security money from the hunt for foreign terrorists.

You can point to this screed from one of America's chief lefty propaganda organs the next time a Liberal totalitarian nut asks you why anyone needs a 30 round magazine

Rough trade reminds me of Towny, the character played by Barnard Hughes in gay director John Schlesinger's 'Midnight Cowboy.'

For their mendacity minions of Media-Pravda - aka, "mainstream media" - ought to be ashamed of themselves, but then a key theme of the liberal-"progressive" destructive project was, and still is, the demolition of shame, or, as Jacques Barzun called it: "EMANCIPATION."

Making cracks about Brian Epstein is all well & good but I don't see the wardrobe decision as a major departure from the milieu of the rival fads, Rockers vs. Teddy Boys IIRC. This was a couple of decades before Rob Halford executed gays' traditional function of office in that cultural area, i.e. the ironical appropriation of the past for camp fodder.

The KKKrazy Glue works because a great deal of White women have nothing but contempt for White guys. Too fat, too soft, too BETA! Why wouldn't they have contempt?

Bottom line, women will excuse anything at all in a man who is sexy, and nothing in a man who is not. If most White guys practiced the "learned charisma and dominance" that is Game, you'd see the KKKrazy Glue fail. Spectacularly.

The NY Beta Times is pretty much aimed at women, front and center. Get rid of the contempt White women feel for most White guys, the Obama Coalition collapses.

Watch out, before you know it, hate itself will be a crime!We have nothing to hate but hate itself.And haters themselves, as long as we only hate them for hating.Otherwise, that would make us haters, and we hate haters. For hating. Uh... yeah. Go Obama!

If you want a nice "hate the haters to stop the hate" bit, try the recent argument from Slate, and then NJ.com:

The NRA is bad because they used to try to disarm blacks, and now they're trying to appeal to blacks.

Hand to God, that's what they said. When the Dems went from the party of slavery to the party of former slaves, that was progress and a good thing. But when the NRA does it, it's hypocrisy and a bad thing.

Sorry, no links for ya, but you can check out thegunwire.com and find the headlines if you want them.

"Making cracks about Brian Epstein is all well & good but I don't see the wardrobe decision as a major departure from the milieu of the rival fads, Rockers vs. Teddy Boys IIRC."

This is true to some extent, but it matters in the case of the Beatles because, as talented as they were, they had to be marketed the right way. They had yet to find their true selves, and Epstein helped them find it. Could they have appealed to the world as the greasy leather jacket four than as the Fab Four? What made them 'fab'? Beatles were not mods. Lennon used to be a 'teddy boy' in the 50s, but he didn't know what he wanted to be in the early 60s, and fashions were changing all the time. British rock n roll was seen mostly as a lame imitation of the American kind. So, Beatles had to 'something new' to not only catch up but go beyond the Americans. They had to break the sound barrier.

They had talent but no real sense of direction. This is where Epstein did make a difference. He instinctively understood what could make the Beatles work. Beatles had the energy and talent, but they needed a new concept. And the change in image may actually have influenced their musical style as well. In the Cavern, they mostly rocked hard and played loud rock n roll. But with the new image came the cleaner sound. And THAT was the Beatles' secret. Prior to the Beatles, there had generally been hard rock n roll and softer/cleaner pop music--though, to be sure, Buddy Holly, had done wonders in bridging the two. Even Elvis sang stuff like 'Love Me Tender'. But Elvis was usually hard or soft, not both at once. Beatles music had elements of both. 'She Love You' is one of the most raucous songs ever but it sounds so clean, so wintergreen fresh. It bowls you over but also has the ummmmmm of vanilla ice cream. It's both crazy and clean. And it was this magical blend of the anarchic and 'innocent' that just drove the girls crazy. Beatles were so cute and so wild, so safe and so 'rad'. So playful and nice AND acerbic and irreverent. Lennon and Ringo were especially great wits. If Epstein hadn't cleaned up the image, would Beatles have written songs like 'All My Loving', which had elements of yearning and tender feelings? Or a song like "I'll Get You", one of their very best? Maybe, maybe not. To be sure, even before Epstein came on the scene, Beatles were being influenced by Brill Building sound that added gentler pop overtones to 'black music'. But, I think Epstein's image revamp gave the Beatles a clearer sense of where they should go and what they should do. Not just clean up their act but streamline and polish their songs.

Now, wearing suits was nothing new. Elvis often wore suits. Many teen idols wore suits. Even so, the devil is in the details, and the suits Beatles wore had a certain distinctive look. And there was better chemistry. They really did look like musical beetles.

They just looked different from other bands in suits such as the Four Seasons or Greasons. And they sounded different. And Beatles had engaging personalities. With most bands, there was one lead guy who hogged the spotlight while the rest remained faceless. But each Beatle mattered, even Ringo who hardly wrote any song.

The KKKrazy Glue works because a great deal of White women have nothing but contempt for White guys. Too fat, too soft, too BETA! Why wouldn't they have contempt?

Bottom line, women will excuse anything at all in a man who is sexy, and nothing in a man who is not. If most White guys practiced the "learned charisma and dominance" that is Game, you'd see the KKKrazy Glue fail. Spectacularly.

You do a lot of talking about Game as if you are some sort of stud, but from the way you lament about white women, and white women only, you also seem like a guy who lives in his mother's basement and couldn't get a date to save his life. Which is it? Are you the quintessential alpha, beta or omega?

The NY Beta Times is pretty much aimed at women, front and center. Get rid of the contempt White women feel for most White guys, the Obama Coalition collapses.

Come on, we have covered this extensively. The majority of white women supported Romney. The NY Times is published and controlled by an elite group. Get that group to stop feeling contempt for whites in general and you might have better luck politically. Stop blaming everything on innocent white women who just do what the media instructs them to do. Start holding accountable the people who control the narrative.

The rise of the album prolly did wonders for rock music as 'art'. Pop albums had been around long before 60s rock, but they usually had one or two hits and throwaway filler material.

The creative advantage of hit-song-writing was it drove composers to come up with really good songs, but the creative disadvantage was the song generally had to be a crowd-pleaser. But not all great songs were immediately likable or appealing to 'everyone'.

Also, hit-song-centrism tended to lead to formula-ism as the composer tried to repeat the successful formula over and over, and in a way, this was the downside of the Brill Building system. Lots of great talent but they were focused on creating the next hit.

Beatles of course wanted to score a lot of hits. But, if they'd been single-centric, they might have poured most of their energies into continuing with the 'right formula'. But they came to be album-centric. So, as long as they came up with few hits a year, they could focus on other kinds of songs that might not be singles or hits but could be musically more interesting and serve as springboards for yet newer ideas.

"You Won't See Me" from RUBBER SOUL, for example, wasn't a hit single but it has one of the most interesting arrangements in any Beatles song. This is true of the Stones too. Some of their most interesting songs weren't hit singles and may not even have been released as singles. Consider 'Think' and 'I am Waiting' on AFTERMATH. There was only one mild hit from Byrds' YOUNGER THAN YESTERDAY, but that album is a real wonder.

Also, if singles failed, they pretty much disappeared from the market forever. But even if an album failed, it could still be readily found in many record shops. Like VELVET UNDERGROUND AND NICO. More posterity.

"But, if they'd been single-centric, they might have poured most of their energies into continuing with the 'right formula'. But they came to be album-centric. So, as long as they came up with few hits a year, they could focus on other kinds of songs that might not be singles or hits but could be musically more interesting and serve as springboards for yet newer ideas."

Or interesting failure is the seed of future success based on new ideas. Instead of trying to go from success to success, great artists often go from success to failure to success to failure to success. It is through the experimental failure that the artist discovers what new stuff works and doesn't work. Maybe the danger of artists who become too successful is they become afraid of failure, but without failing, they can't come upon new successful ideas. Trial and error, as humans are not infallible. Before Kurosawa could succeed with SEVEN SAMURAI, he had to fail--big time--with THE IDIOT. Before Bergman could succeed with PERSONA, he had to fail with THROUGH A GLASS DARKLY.

Same in politics. Democrats kept failing cuz they just kept looking back to FDR and Kennedy. It finally took Clinton to come up with the New Democratic Party. GOP was so successful with Reagan that it kept harking back to Reaganism and fighting the 'new' evil empire than reassessing the world. More to learn from interesting/bold failures than from successes.

"You do a lot of talking about Game as if you are some sort of stud, but from the way you lament about white women, and white women only, you also seem like a guy who lives in his mother's basement and couldn't get a date to save his life. Which is it? Are you the quintessential alpha, beta or omega?"

by now, none of us regular readers care.This person is well known for inane belly-button gazing. I don't always look at the handles on the commenters, but as soon as I see "hate hate" and "white women" in the same word group, I yawn and move on. I've gotten as good as ignoring him as I've gotten over the years at ignoring presidents I loathe. I never heard a full speech of Reagan, Bush I or II, or Obama. I heard some of Clinton for the entertainment value.

Here's the Google Wallet FAQ. From it: "You will need to have (or sign up for) Google Wallet to send or receive money. If you have ever purchased anything on Google Play, then you most likely already have a Google Wallet. If you do not yet have a Google Wallet, don’t worry, the process is simple: go to wallet.google.com and follow the steps." You probably already have a Google ID and password, which Google Wallet uses, so signing up Wallet is pretty painless.

You can put money into your Google Wallet Balance from your bank account and send it with no service fee.

Google Wallet works from both a website and a smartphone app (Android and iPhone -- the Google Wallet app is currently available only in the U.S., but the Google Wallet website can be used in 160 countries).

Or, once you sign up with Google Wallet, you can simply send money via credit card, bank transfer, or Wallet Balance as an attachment from Google's free Gmail email service. Here'show to do it.

(Non-tax deductible.)

Fourth: if you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay. Just tell WF SurePay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.)

Fifth: if you have a Chase bank account (or, theoretically,other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address (steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it's Steven Sailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.)

My Book:

"Steve Sailer gives us the real Barack Obama, who turns out to be very, very different - and much more interesting - than the bland healer/uniter image stitched together out of whole cloth this past six years by Obama's packager, David Axelrod. Making heavy use of Obama's own writings, which he admires for their literary artistry, Sailer gives the deepest insights I have yet seen into Obama's lifelong obsession with 'race and inheritance,' and rounds off his brilliant character portrait with speculations on how Obama's personality might play out in the Presidency." - John Derbyshire Author, "Prime Obsession: Bernhard Riemann and the Greatest Unsolved Problem in Mathematics" Click on the image above to buy my book, a reader's guide to the new President's autobiography.